The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) occurred when the defendant's act was frightened and exempted, and the defendant was frightened to the victim under the condition that he was frightened, and frightened to the victim, and there was an inevitable physical contact with the victim. The victim is merely misunderstanding that the defendant's act was an indecent act because he memorys only the situation immediately after the locking due to physical contact

The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the Defendant did not commit an indecent act by force.

2. In full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time the argument in the appellate court is concluded, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). The lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance is recognized, comprehensively taking account of the

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① there is no circumstance to find it considerably unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of the victim’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in this case, ② if the victim’s physical contact occurred due to the loss of body center as the defendant’s assertion, it appears that the victim caused a strong shock compared to the degree stated in the court below’s decision, ③ it is not clear whether the defendant’s goods storage at the time of flight (see PT argument materials as of December 1, 202) existed.